Mostly it seems a bit silly to have so much conversations about parts of the pep that remain unchanged from previously accepted versions...

On Nov 19, 2012 8:33 PM, "Donald Stufft" <donald.stufft@gmail.com> wrote:
So you want to leave metadata in that you think people shouldn't implement?

Or you do think people should implement it and the point about it existing
forever without an implementation is?

At the very least there needs to be some sort of guidelines as to what
to do with the field in the various states it could be in.

On Monday, November 19, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Daniel Holth wrote:

We are getting along fine too. No tool parses metadata 1.x for package management reasons and provides has existed forever with no implementation. So it is not inconveniencing anyone. I would prefer to leave it alone.

Daniel Holth

On Nov 19, 2012, at 7:49 PM, Donald Stufft <donald.stufft@gmail.com> wrote:

Other languages seem to get along fine without it. Even the OS
managers which have it don't allow it to be used to masquerade
as another project, only to make generic virtual packages (e.g. "email").

On Monday, November 19, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Daniel Holth wrote:

Does it really have baggage? I think it is necessary, although it doesn't do favors to the implementer (and has never been implemented). How else is anyone supposed to fork or merge projects?

Daniel Holth

On Nov 19, 2012, at 7:37 PM, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Daniel Holth <dholth@gmail.com> wrote:
I think this PEP is a significant improvement from its predecessor. It represents features like extras (provides-extra) and build requirements (setup-requires-dist) that are in use in the Python community but cannot be represented in older versions of the format, it finally specifies a UTF-8 encoding, removes RFC 822, provides an extension mechanism, and allows the description to be placed in the document payload.

Can we maybe kill Provides-Dist and its associated baggage first, though?